Title + As I dont have a G account signed in they cant track me as a person and I also turned diagnostics data sharing off. Will it be help they might track me a as person on this device.Right?? Also as to quit google I have to quit internet so will it be advantageous to do this thing.

TL;DR

Google’s ‘ad auctions’ face a privacy challenge in the Netherlands. Google has been accused of intrusive online surveillance by more than 82,000 people who have signed up to a class action lawsuit against the tech giant in the Netherlands.

Adobe starts paying out stock contributors for helping train AI. To train Firefly, its generative AI model, the company only uses content that it has rights to through its stock image platform Adobe Stock or that is in the public domain. Adobe has now started to make good on its promise to compensate Adobe Stock creators who may lose out from the widespread adoption of AI.

UK backs down on encryption-breaking plan. The plan was to compel service providers, including messengers, to scan encrypted chats for child porn. Although the British government promised not to force companies to use unproven technology to snoop on users, it may try to enforce the so-called “spy clause” in the future if better and more secure (in the government’s eyes) technology emerges.

WhatsApp denies it will have ads. The Financial Times has reported that WhatsApp is considering inserting ads into lists of conversations with contacts in a bid to increase its revenue. A rebuttal from WhatsApp head Will Cathcart followed. “This @FT story is false. We aren’t doing this.” Still, the FT stood by their story, claiming that before it was published they had reached out to WhatsApp, and they had not denied such conversations could have taken place. Citing sources within WhatsApp, the FT then reported that another option that was being discussed is to introduce a paid ad-free version of WhatsApp.

X unveils verification system based on govt. ID. X, formerly Twitter, has begun offering its paid subscribers a new way of verification. Now, they can upload their government-issued IDs along with their selfie, and get an “ID verified” label on their profile along with “prioritized support.”

Hi I recently reviewed my Google account settings on my phone. On exploring it I found that I can Remove almost every annoying tracker,I can delete my data,Remove services,Disable Personised ads etc.After giving it 20minutes of my day I found that Google do not deserve the Hate it gets from FOSS and PRIVACY Consious people.Is there some real reason why you should not use google products for privacy or It is just everybody want to live a Hacker's life.

I know it's not exactly hot news, but I entirely missed the article, so here you go.

From Cult of the Dead Cow, Veilid allows anyone to build a distributed, private app. Veilid will give users the privacy to opt out of data collection, and online tracking. Veilid is being built with user experience, privacy, and safety as our top priority. It will be open sourced and available to everyone to use and build upon, with flagship apps available from the launch.

We all deserve privacy in our communications, and part of that is trusting that the government will only access them within the limits of the law. But at this point, it’s crystal clear that the FBI doesn’t believe that either our rights nor the limitations that Congress has placed upon the bureau matter when it comes to the vast amount of information about us collected under FISA Section 702.

The latest exhibit in this is in yet another newly declassified opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). This opinion further reiterates what we already know, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation simply cannot be trusted with conducting foreign intelligence queries on American persons. Regardless of the rules, or consistent FISC disapprovals, the FBI continues to act in a way that shows no regard for privacy and civil liberties.

According to the declassified FISC ruling, despite paper reforms which the FBI has touted that it put into place to respond to the last time it was caught violating U.S. law, the Bureau conducted four queries for the communications of a state senator and a U.S. senator. And they did so without even meeting their own already-inadequate standards for these kinds of searches.

How many times will the FBI get caught with their hand in the cookie jar of our constitutionally protected private communications without losing these invasive and unconstitutional powers?

...

Apple has warned that it will shut down services such as FaceTime and iMessage in the U.K. if the government goes ahead with controversial legislation.

A proposed update to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is currently in open consultation. Members of the public are invited to offer feedback on the amendments, which include a requirement for messaging services to notify the Home Office, a department of the British Government that handles immigration, security, and law and order, of new security features before they are rolled out, and the right for the Home Office to privately demand that security features be disabled immediately. Under current legislation, the latter can be requested, but there is an independent oversight process and room for appeal before action is taken.

One of my go to list when I am searching for privacy respecting alternatives.

Hi, so I stumbled on some videos and decided to change my browser and search engine for more privacy. I wrote about it in my blog, hope u find it useful.

Before the API changes Teddit was one of my favorite ways to browse Reddit. It seems like more and more that companies make changes that reduce privacy.

A new deal on data transfers between the EU and US has alarmed businesses and privacy campaigners.

The pact, known as the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, was announced on Monday by the European Commission. The EU’s executive body concluded that the US offered an “adequate level of protection” for data transfers under the new arrangements.

The framework replaces the Privacy Shield, which the EU’s top court had struck down in July 2020 over concerns that the US didn’t provide sufficient protection against government surveillance.